I would think in the first programme they should stick to a narrow range of marks - no 2 from Craig because someone is nervous and no 9s either. Perhaps only 5, 6 or 7.

If that was a response to my last post on this thread I feel I should point out that it was not only offered as evidence as to the idea that judges opinion counts for little,but also a veiled dig at those members of the "poor little picked upon (insert choice of celeb here)" brigade.

Clone Len ?

If somebody is bad enough to warrant 2s or 3s, then they should get 2s or 3s.

I think it helps to think of the judges as entertainers playing the role of judge-impersonators.

All I ask for fair marking instead of marking that tries to manipulate the voting but I suppose that is too much to ask. It doesn't take much knowledge of dancing to notice that last year Lisa's faults were ignored or made light of by all the judges. Her marks ranged from generous to down right ridiculous. Others received the opposite treatment. James and Brendan find it difficult hiding their displeasure when the marking is unfair. They are experienced pros and know when someone has performed well/badly and deserves more/less. Watch their expressions in Tess' area this year when the scores come up. I am not talking about them reacting to their own scores but the scores of other couples. I don't think Louis was berated. His scores were sometimes too generous and sometimes a bit low in my view. The comments followed the same pattern. Other celebs were berated but not him. It was obvious to me they wanted him to win and used various ways to achieve this.

There's a fella on DWTS who is already suffering from manipulated voting. He's not the young hip and happening thing the producers want and the votes reflect that. It's blatant and cynical but also, I suppose, the nature of the show.

It is not necessary in the first programme when they are settling in, if they are that bad then there will be chance the following week.

Oh, no, they don't!
Oh, yes, they do!
It's behind you!

You are right, fatskia. Strictly is a pantomime and every year I remind myself not to take the judging too seriously. Nor do I take it seriously when the pros (James and Brendan do this most) jump up and down and complain about the marking. It's all part of the show and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it weren't scripted like that.

Having said that, it's easy to get caught up in it all. I wasn't the only one shrieking at Len for giving Kara and Artem a 6 for the American Smooth in Blackpool. That, coupled with Artem's injury, must have generated gazillions of votes for them. I know the BBC doesn't make a profit from the phone votes, but controversy generates headlines, which in turn generates viewing figures and improved ratings.

That's why they get paid so much.

If they were being paid for being judges they would have to like eating peanuts.

I love threads like these. The "dance experts" who gained all their expertise from watching "Come Dancing" in 1973 really do amuse me.

I doubt the injury was scripted but iniquitously low scores do seem like an attempt to force feed fans' sympathies. Do they think we're stupid? Well, yes, we are!

There's no way Louis last year deserved his rush of shoddy scores, especially not for his paso doble, IMO, but it certainly exercised his supporters on the forum and no doubt that outrage corresponded to votes. I half wonder about Kimberley being in the DO, which had a similar effect.

Many people who watch Strictly have more expertise than that. If the marking was not so ridiculous it would probably go unnoticed by those of us who only have a little bit of expertise. When experienced pros start making comments about the marking then you know there is something wrong and I am not talking just about those connected to the programme. Experts' opinions can vary of course they can but not to the extent they do some weeks.

I would rather the marks erred on the low side than the high in the first few weeks. You've got to give the slebs somewhere to go. And even if the contenders do come shooting out of the traps strong, as did Ramps and Kara there is usually room for improvement, after Ramps was a bit overworky on the feet on the first few dances, and Kara fell over. I really hate it when they give 9s and 10s especially when you look back at Jill's Jive for instance that they gave 8s to,and none of the dances I have seen in Weeks 1 to 3 in recent series match it.

Sorry if I gave the impression I thought the injury was scripted, Monkey - I don't think that at all. Just saying that it must have garnered a sympathy vote and Len's dismissal of the AS as not having any Foxtrot content would also have exercised people to vote for them (it worked on me!).


Sorry to be pedantic, Nancy, but the judges gave Saint Jill of Halfpenny 9s the first time she danced the jive in week 3 (except for Craig, of course, who gave an 8). She got 10s across the board when she repeated the jive in the final.

My bad, I thought she had at least 2 8s! Apologies. Her dances were still undermarked compared to some later 10s or maybe just more realistic..

Yes,I noticed that last season.


His supporters needed to feel they were fighting for justice when voting,not simply saying 'he's a bit rubbish at times but we like to root for the-boy-done-good underdog and my sister thinks he's cute.'

peeve! I wouldn't for a moment think that of you. Ah, of course not! I was just removing it from the equation before someone could suggest it. (Aliona's ankle still fresh in my mind.)

I find it more understandable if the scores were a bit skewhiff in the first few series because there was a limited range of other Strictly dances to compare them to. Jill's was only the 8th jive they'd ever had, and the first ever to be scored over 30. It's harder to set benchmarks if you've got a limited range to compare it with.

Now they've seen about 80 of the things, they should really know what constitutes a 9 or a 5 or what-have-you though.

This is a 90% celebrity and ratings driven show with the dancing 10% if that. The marks and the comments I am sure are pre-scripted by the producers. You could replace dancing with painting or singing or cooking or dress design or anything subjective and have virtually the same show.

The secret to such shows is the subjectivity and the ability to generate press and twitter ire.on the back of unfair marking.

Totally agree and the reverse is also true, if someone deserves 9s or even 10s, they should get them irrespective of what week it is.

Thats a bit unfair for those who have worked hard. Why should they have the same marks as someone who hasn't it isn't as good? Where is the reward fir them when the marks are fudged anyway?